Introduction • The remand project was commissioned by the Director of OEDCA and was overseen by the Associate Director • Purpose: Gain incite on how many cases were being remanded to ORM and at what rate our attorneys issued these remands – Gain an understanding for the most common reason(s) for why cases were being remanded – Assess trends of remands over the course of FY 2010, FY 2011 & FY2012 – Develop suggestions / strategies for more thorough investigations
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Introduction
• The remand project was commissioned by the Director of OEDCA and was overseen by the Associate Director
• Purpose: Gain incite on how many cases were being remanded to ORM and at what rate our attorneys issued these remands– Gain an understanding for the most common
reason(s) for why cases were being remanded – Assess trends of remands over the course of FY
2010, FY 2011 & FY2012– Develop suggestions / strategies for more thorough
• FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS- General questions usually directed toward the investigator to clarify certain issues.• INSUFFICIENT TESTIMONY• More Detailed Responses-the information provided by those involved in the case was not sufficient. More
information is needed to render a decision.• Failure to Interview all Witnesses- Those whose testimony plays an integral part in the case were not interviewed
by the investigator.• Re-Interview Witness-Those involved in the case were initially interviewed, but must be re-interviewed so that the
investigator can ask further questions.• MISSING DOCUMENTS- Certain documents were excluded from the Complainant’s case file.• REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS- Additional documents that were not initially provided are needed for
the attorney to render a decision.• MISSING INFO. FROM DOCUMENTS- Investigators provided the proper documentation, but certain information
was missing or redacted from the document (i.e a complainant’s disability, dates that certain events occurred, or information that indicates a person’s age)
• CLARIFICATION OF CLAIM/ISSUE- Based on the written investigation, the issue(s)/claim(s) that the Complainant is alleging are not clear or may not fall under a protected bases, based on the way the claim is worded.
• PROCEDURAL• Claims Erroneously Dismissed-ORM improperly dismissed claims that did not warrant dismissal or ORM dismissed
claims without consideration to certain documents and criteria.• Failure to Investigate/Process Claim(s)- Certain claims that were alleged were not investigated at all; claims were
not investigated on the bases alleged; Cases were processed as mixed cases and shouldn’t have been; Certain claims that should have been investigated as independent were investigated as disparate treatment, reasonable accommodation or under the wrong standard.
TEMPLATESFY 2010
Complainant's Name Reason Remanded Issue Attorney
Complainant 1Clarification of Claim/Issue Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 1
Complainant 2Missing information from document (dates) Harassment (non-sexual) Attorney 3
• Request that complainant and witnesses be explicit in the manner in which they answer questions
• Present questions in a different manner until you get the information needed
• Ask follow up questions; require specificity• Interview all witnesses, including RMOs and essentially anyone involved in
the case• Remember to request all information/documents i.e. vacancy
announcements, medical documentation etc.• Review all documents that are submitted thoroughly to make sure no info
is missing i.e. dates, names of officials, etc.• Be clear when articulating claims and issues • When considering whether or not a claim should be accepted determine
whether the claim/issue pertains to a protected basis• Review and understand criteria that warrants when a claim should be